Re Redemptionis Sacramentum
It's important to remember
(a) that a single instance of an unusual abuse is elevated to the status of something that is happening everywhere in the mind of Rome, and therefore must be stamped out. That was the principle underlying most of Cardinal Arinze's rants when he was at the Congregation. Most people had never heard of most of the things he went on about (all he did was give them ideas!). The resulting "rant document" was RS. (Rantum ergo Sacramentum?)
(b) that this was the document which was widely talked about beforehand as being the one that would ban liturgical dance. In the event, dancing wasn't even mentioned. (I imagine that Arinze's fellow Nigerians would not have been too happy if it had been... )
(c) that a draft of this document was, unusually, circulated to Bishops' Conferences for comment ahead of promulgation. A number of them wrote back to Rome saying "You simply can't say A, B and C..... but you must say X, Y and Z....". What happened? The Romans will never admit they are wrong, so when the document finally appeared it now contained both A, B and C and X, Y and Z. This document probably has more internal contradictions in it than any other issued in recent times.
Moving swiftly back to topic, of course Sacrosanctum Concilium has its own internal contradictions, but these are much fewer in number and easily identifiable.
And as far as Peter Jones's "Good-morning,-everyone"-after-the-Sign-of-the-Cross-and-Greeting abuse is concerned, the question which Nick is trying to articulate is How do we make the Mass into a human celebration while respecting the rite itself? Some priests come out onto the sanctuary ahead of time and say "Good morning" from the ambo, then dive back into the sacristy to emerge a couple of minutes later in the entrance procession. That solves the abuse problem, but it always feels somewhat odd. Other priests solve this particular issue by being at the back of the church beforehand, or walking up and down the nave, greeting people, before diving back into the sacristy to vest rapidly and then process — in other words, saying good morning to them individually or in groups rather than all together once Mass has begun. Of course, if most people haven't arrived by that time, that solution doesn't work either.....
50 (or more) years on - Sacrosanctum Concilium
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
-
- Posts: 2024
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm
Re: 50 (or more) years on - Sacrosanctum Concilium
Last edited by Southern Comfort on Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:46 am
- Parish / Diocese: Birmingham
Re: 50 (or more) years on - Sacrosanctum Concilium
My own preferred solution, when required - but yes, it can seem a bit odd.Southern Comfort wrote:Some priests come out onto the sanctuary ahead of time and say "Good morning" from the ambo:(
Any opinions expressed are my own, not those of the Archdiocese of Birmingham Liturgy Commission, Church Music Committee.
Website
Website
Re: 50 (or more) years on - Sacrosanctum Concilium
Southern Comfort wrote:...as far as Peter Jones's "Good-morning,-everyone"-after-the-Sign-of-the-Cross-and-Greeting abuse is concerned, the question which Nick is trying to articulate is How do we make the Mass into a human celebration while respecting the rite itself? Some priests come out onto the sanctuary ahead of time and say "Good morning" from the ambo, then dive back into the sacristy to emerge a couple of minutes later in the entrance procession. That solves the abuse problem, but it always feels somewhat odd. Other priests solve this particular issue by being at the back of the church beforehand, or walking up and down the nave, greeting people, before diving back into the sacristy to vest rapidly and then process — in other words, saying good morning to them individually or in groups rather than all together once Mass has begun. Of course, if most people haven't arrived by that time, that solution doesn't work either.....
My PP adopts the latter strategy - but I had never made the connection with Sacrosanctum Concilium. Thanks, SC (whose initials, as we all know, suggest a certain affinity for the document).
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog
blog
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:46 am
- Parish / Diocese: Birmingham
Re: 50 (or more) years on - Sacrosanctum Concilium
Southern Comfort wrote:..........the question which Nick is trying to articulate is How do we make the Mass into a human celebration while respecting the rite itself?
That's a real bone of contention for some people. The use of the vernacular made the Mass far too human to the neglect of the divine. Where's the "numinous" now? Perhaps the model to study is the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus.
Any opinions expressed are my own, not those of the Archdiocese of Birmingham Liturgy Commission, Church Music Committee.
Website
Website
-
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:57 pm
- Parish / Diocese: St Lawrence Diocese of St Petersburg
- Location: Tampa, Florida
Re: 50 (or more) years on - Sacrosanctum Concilium
Reading references to Arinze and liturgical dance reminds me of one occasion when Cardinal Arinze visited the church of St Ignatius, Stamford Hill while I was musician there. After the 'pro Nigeria' Mass there was a reception at which he was honoured by 6 Nigerian women who danced for him provocatively pointing their voluminous rears at his Eminence. There was no response to such provocation from him but one esteemed Jesuit remarked to me " I wonder what they would do to 'turn you on'!"
Apologies for the diversion but I had to get it out of my system!
Apologies for the diversion but I had to get it out of my system!
Re: 50 (or more) years on - Sacrosanctum Concilium
andPeter Jones wrote:Nick is referring to Redemptionis Sacramentum - my link above.
I see, having ploughed through to the end, that RS was issued in 2004. How much of it (and in the case of it's internal contradictions, which options) still stands in the light of subsequent documents (GIRM? CTM? etc)?Southern Comfort wrote:This document probably has more internal contradictions in it than any other issued in recent times.
Does Fr Gareth's Guide in another thread successfully navigate this minefield?
Q
Re: 50 (or more) years on - Sacrosanctum Concilium
Is the relative youthfulness of the complainers the reason for mentions of liturgical abuses to always seem to mean post Vat II?
I am old enough to remember how it was ante. There were abuses then too.
I am old enough to remember how it was ante. There were abuses then too.